On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:29:19AM -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Simon Ward <si...@bleah.co.uk> wrote: > > There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs: > > There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself. > > Actually, section 3 will make it harder to upgrade. Under the CT > section 3, the database can only be licensed under "ODbL 1.0 for the > database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; > CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and > open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved > by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors."
That’s a fair point.
I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be
taken transitively as follows:
1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0;
2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later
version of the ODbL;
3. By (1) and (2), CTs allow licencing under ODbL 1.0, which includes
licences compatible with ODbL 1.0, or a later version of the ODbL?
For free software, the GPL doesn’t include an upgrade clause, but the
copyright holder may specify one in their copyright statements, which
avoids this particular ambiguity.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
